Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep IV Ips 80/2007 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2008:IV.IPS.80.2007 AI generated

Court dismisses defendant's request for legality protection in traffic violation cases, reserving it solely for the prosecutor.

Case Number Sklep IV Ips 80/2007
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia rejected the defendant's request for legality protection regarding a traffic violation fine. The defendant argued violations of the Constitution and the Offences Act, but the court held that only the state prosecutor may file such requests in traffic violation cases. Consequently, the defendant's procedural remedy was deemed inadmissible as the law explicitly restricts this extraordinary legal measure to the prosecutorial authority.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Second paragraph of Article 169 of the Offences Act; Article 423, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act: In traffic violation proceedings, only the state prosecutor may file a request for legality protection, not the offender, who may only request the prosecutor to file the extraordinary remedy.

Keywords

AI generated
traffic violation procedure legality protection request state prosecutor authority offender procedural rights extraordinary legal remedy Supreme Court ruling procedural inadmissibility

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 169, paragraph 2 of the Offences Act
Article 423, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 171 of the Offences Act
AI generated
VSK sklep II Kp 5961/2013
Appeal dismissed; court fees in mandatory proceedings depend on duration, complexity, and assets, not just sentence severity.
VSRS Sodba IV Ips 35/2017
Supreme Court allows appeal against traffic fine, ruling driver must be given chance to contest breathalyzer results after reviewing the official report.
Sodba IV Ips 5/2011
Supreme Court allows appeal against traffic offense verdict due to violation of right to defense and alibi evidence.
VSK sodba PRp 210/2009
Appeal dismissed: Traffic violation conviction upheld where defendant failed to prove non-involvement by sufficient probability.
Sodba IV Ips 59/2013
Supreme Court dismisses appeal for legal protection regarding a traffic offense sentencing change due to lack of reasoning.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Zahteva storilca B.G. za varstvo zakonitosti se zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti v zadevah o prekršku sme vložiti edino (vrhovni) državni tožilec, ne pa tudi storilec prekrška. Ta lahko vloži edino pobudo za vložitev izrednega pravnega sredstva pri vrhovnem državnem tožilstvu.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Prekrškovni organ Postaja mejne policije P. je storilcu prekrška B.G. izdal plačilni nalog z dne 7.3.2007 zaradi prekrška po osmem v zvezi s prvim odstavkom 59. člena ZVCP-1. Izrečena mu je bila globa 2.086,46 EUR. Zoper navedeni plačilni nalog je storilec vložil zahtevo za sodno varstvo z dne 23.3.2007, ki jo je Okrajno sodišče s sodbo z dne 17.9.2007 kot neutemeljeno zavrnilo.

Zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti z dne 18.11.2007 vlaga storilec B.G., in sicer zaradi kršitev 22., 23. in 29. člena Ustave Republike Slovenije ter 9., 57., 59., 156. in 169. člena Zakona o prekrških (ZP-1, Ur.l. RS, št. 7/03, s spremembami in dopolnitvami). Vrhovnemu sodišču predlaga, naj izpodbijano sodbo razveljavi in zadevo vrne sodišču prve stopnje v ponovno odločanje.

Zahteva za varstvo zakonitosti ni dovoljena.

Po določbi drugega odstavka 169. člena ZP-1 zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti lahko vloži državni tožilec po uradni dolžnosti ali na pobudo osebe, ki ima pravico do pritožbe zoper sodbo o prekršku sodišča prve stopnje. V skladu s citirano določbo ZP-1 torej sme zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti v zadevah o prekršku vložiti edino (vrhovni) državni tožilec, ne pa tudi storilec prekrška. Ta lahko vloži edino pobudo za vložitev izrednega pravnega sredstva pri vrhovnem državnem tožilstvu.

Glede na to, da ZP-1 storilcu prekrška ne daje pravice vložiti to izredno pravno sredstvo, je Vrhovno sodišče zahtevo storilca B.G. za varstvo zakonitosti kot nedovoljeno zavrglo (drugi odstavek 423. člena Zakona o kazenskem postopku v zvezi s 171. členom ZP-1).